brand loyalty for colour television products with …esrjournal.com/uploads/91/4857_pdf.pdf ·...

International Journal of Engineering & Scientific Research

Vol. 6 Issue 2, February 2018, ISSN: 2347-6532 Impact Factor: 6.660 Journal Homepage: http://www.esrjournal.com Email: [email protected] Double-

Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories Indexed & Listed at: Ulrich's Periodicals Directory ©, U.S.A., Open J-Gage as well as in Cabell’s Directories of Publishing Opportunities, U.S.A

174 International Journal of Engineering and Scientific Research http://www.esrjournal.com Email: [email protected]

BRAND LOYALTY FOR COLOUR TELEVISION

PRODUCTS WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO

COIMBATORE CITY-TAMIL NADU - INDIA

Dr.V.Ravi Kumar

Principal, CMS Institute of Management Studies

Coimbatore -49

Abstract

The study of brands is very exhaustive, and brand building is top priority to the

corporate. In its effort to build brands, a company has to create value with regard to

the offering from the organization. Brand Loyalty, is a brand equity measurement. It is

a key consideration when placing a value on a brand that is to be brought or sold,

because a highly loyal customer base can be expected to generate a very predictable

sale and profit stream. This study intends to find out the importance of Brand Loyalty

in the Brand building environment. For this purpose the growth industry of colour

televisions (CTV) has been chosen. Five leading brands selling the Coimbatore city (a

leading industrial town in Tamil Nadu in the south of India has been considered. The

aims were to highlight the impact of socio economic factors like education, family size,

gender, family type, income, occupation, on brand loyalty, and to compare the brands

in the study to identify highest and lowest loyalty towards thee brands. Customers of

Colour television sets CTV were interviewed through multi-stage sampling and the

data collected was analysed using statistical tools to bring authenticity into the study.

The findings point out significantly to the role of brand loyalty as related to socio

economic factors and reveals the result of the top CTV brand in the market to which

the customers show more loyalty.

Keywords:

First keyword; BrandEquity,

Second keyword: Brand

Loyalty, Third keyword: Colour

Television (CTV), Fourth keyword: Multi stage

sampling, Fifth keyword: Socio economic

factors.

Copyright © 2018 International Journals of Multidisciplinary Research Academy. All rights reserved.

Author correspondence:

Dr.V.Ravi Kumar,

Principal, CMS Institute of Management Studies

Coimbatore -49.,Tamil Nadu, India

1.Introduction :The concept of Brand is always exciting to study. Every product or service

gets associated with a brand name that helps the customers to differentiate it when making a

purchase. The amount of time companies spend to choose a brand name and the catchy

ISSN: 2347-6532 Impact Factor: 6.660


names that come out into the market is really interesting. Brand building does not stop with

naming a brand, it is about creating value with regard to the offering of the organisation.

Brand Loyalty, is also a brand equity measurement. It is a key consideration when placing

a value on a brand that is to be brought or sold, because a highly loyal customer base can be

expected to generate a very predictable sale and profit stream. In fact, a brand without a

loyal consumer base usually is vulnerable or has value only in its potential to create loyal

customers. Further, the impact of brand loyalty on marketing costs is often substantial: It is

simply much less costly to retain customers than to attract new ones. A common and

expensive mistake is to seek growth by enticing new customers to the brand while

neglecting existing ones. The loyalty of existing customers also represents a substantial

entry barrier to competitors in part because the cost of enticing customers to change

loyalties is often prohibitively expensive. A focus on loyalty segmentation provides strategic

and tactical insights that will assist in building strong brands. There are passively loyal

(those who buy out of habit rather than reason) and committed customers. Two segments in

which the firms under invest are the passive loyal and the committed customers. One

approach to enhancing loyalty is to develop or strengthen their relationship with the brand.

Brand awareness, perceived quality and an effective, clear brand identity can contribute to

this goal. Increasingly programs that can build loyalty more directly are becoming important

and even critical in many product classes. Included among these are frequent buyer

programs and customer clubs .

Coimbatore has been termed as the Manchester of the South. Being a major city in the

State of Tamil Nadu., all the CTV companies have either an office or a depot for their

products in this city. The Sales is done through the dealers to the customers. Coimbatore

city on average sells about 800 colour television sets every month and some of the leading

colour television brands selling in Coimbatore city are LG, Samsung, Onida, Videocon,

Sansui, Philips and Panasonic in the order of their sales quantity positions. ** Some other

brands also sold but very insignificant quantities.

** ascertained/cross checked and approximated from CTV dealers/company executives

The total area of Coimbatore district is 7469 sq.kms.* The district is an inland district in the

Southern part of the Peninsula. It lies in the extreme west of Tamil Nadu. Coimbatore

population within the municipal limits was 9, 30,882 as per 2001 census. It is now estimated

at 15 lacs.

The Coimbatore city is divided into four zones, North, East, West and South.

Each zone is divided into 18 wards*



Some of the popular wards in terms of density of residential population are as under.

North East West South

Tata bad Ondipudur Sai baba colony Sukrawarpet

P.N. Palayam Krishnaswamy nagar Barathi Park Raja street

Kavundampalayam Ramanthapuram Telungupalayam Katoor

New Siddhapudur Meena estate Vadavalli Nanjundapuram

Rathinapuri Singanallur R.S. Puram Ramnagar

P.N.Palayam Race course Ponniarajapuram Devangapet

*Source: www.coimbatore.tn.nic.in ( data of 2010)

IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY:

This study of Brand Loyalty is very much relevant to the Consumer Electronics Industry,

specific to Colour Television (hereinafter referred to as CTV) products. It is one of the

consumer durable products that have become an absolute necessity at the household and the

single most popular form of family entertainment. The growing market size and the entry of

many multinational companies in the early 1990’s like LG, Samsung, Sony to name a few,

to compete against the already dominant Indian Players like Onida, Videocon, BPL, Sansui,

Philips threw the market open for hectic brand competition. The survival of the fittest, the

survival of the brand that impressed the customer the most became the order of the day. So,

it became necessary for the companies to build their brands and increase the customer

Loyalty to their brand.

The product range in CTV’s of the companies range from 3DTV, LED TV, LCD TV,

Plasma TV, 29” TV, 21”TV, to 14” TV.

OBJECTIVES:

1.To determine the impact of socio economic variables like education, occupation, income,

gender, family status on brand loyalty.

2. To ascertain the relationship among Brand Loyalty and Brand of CTV owned.

3. To find out the highest and lowest rated brand in terms of brand loyalty for each brand in

the study.

2. Research Method :

The study was descriptive in nature. Methodology involved instrument development and

validation, data collection and appropriate analysis.

The research is designed in such a way to gather data to analyse selected parameters of

brand equity influencing customers attitude towards colour television brands and also the

status with regard to the brand equity of specific brands. This will enable the companies to

make some rational decisions in introducing marketing strategies with respect to the

customer responses and research findings.



The Universe/population in this study is the Colour television owners in Coimbatore city.

Coimbatore city covers the Municipal corporation limits of 105.50sq.kms. The sample size

chosen for this research is 400 customers of Colour Television (CTV) products in

Coimbatore city. The city is divided into four zones (North, East, West & South) with each

zone having 18 wards*. Multi stage sampling** is adopted. In the first stage, Purposive

sampling is adopted by which three areas/wards were chosen from each zone. This choice

was based on the density of the mixture of both low income and middle income families. In

the second stage through random sampling, the streets were chosen. For this, the lists of

street names were collected from the ward offices. In the third stage, the households in the

street were selected by convenient sampling that is either left or right side of the street or in

the middle was selected. Because the total CTV owners were not known Quota sampling

was followed by taking 100 respondents from each zone. If a street could not be covered

with 100 respondents then the next street was chosen at random and the respondent

households were identified until all the 100 respondents were covered in each zone. Colour

Televisions as per popularity and market shares ascertained from the Company executives

fall in the order of sales quantity in Coimbatore city as LG, Samsung, Onida, Sansui &

Videocon. Therefore in the study, focus is given to these top five brands for the study of

brand equity.

** Sampling method: 1st stage- wards (Purposive); 2

nd stage- streets (Random); 3

rd stage-

houses (Convenient); 100 households as a (quota) for each zone. (Total sample size 400)

NORTH ZONE 100 EAST ZONE 100

1. Kavundampalayam 33 1. Ramanathapuram 35

2. Rathnapuri 33 2. Ondipudur 34

3. Tatabad 34 3. Singanallur 31

WEST ZONE 100 SOUTH ZONE 100

1. Sai baba Colony 35 1. Ram Nagar 36

2. R.S.Puram 30 2. Sukrawarpet 30

3. Vadavalli 35 3. Raja Street 34

*source; www.coimbatore-corporation.com (2010 data)

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION:

DATA COLLECTION FROM THE SAMPLE SELECTED:

The data from the respondents were collected through interview schedules which have been

filled up by meeting the respondents. The researcher had made a pilot study to find out how

effective the schedule should be. The Company executives of CTV companies suggested

some ideas at this stage. A pre-test of the schedule was done on 30 customers and

adjustments made in the schedule.

DATA COLLECTION FROM SECONDARY SOURCES:

In order to substantiate the Research, secondary data was collected from the Books,

Journals, Newspapers & Magazines, other research reports and Net resources.

Discussions were had with the company executives at Coimbatore and also the Dealer

network to ascertain the performance of brand before administering the interview schedule

to the respondents.

The data was analysed using the following statistical tools:- Simple percentage method,

ANOVA, t-test, chi-square test & correlation.



3. Results and Analysis

Table 1:Purchase of other durable of same brand by the respondent

No. Percent

Yes 231 57.8

No 169 42.2

Total 400 100.0

Interpretation:

From the above table it is found that 57.8% of the respondents have purchased some other

product of the same brand of durable again and 42.2% of the respondents have not

purchased the same brand.

Table 2 :Purchase of other domestic consumer durables of same brand by the respondent-

Multiple Response

Interpretation:

From the above table it is found that 67.7%

of the respondents have DVD players of the

same brand, 33.3% have refrigerators of the

same brand, 8.7% have washing machines of

the same brand and .9% of the respondents

have micro-wave oven of the same brand.

Table 3: Loyalty factor score of the brand *

Score No. Percent

3.00 8 2.0

4.00 10 2.5

5.00 87 21.8

6.00 118 29.5

7.00 105 26.3

8.00 50 12.4

9.00 14 3.5

10.00 8 2.0

Total 400 100.0

*Loyalty factor score was ascertained from the respondent though the schedule in the range score of

1-10, to find their response towards buying the same brand of other products.

Interpretation:

From the above table it is found in the study that 29.5% of the respondents have given a

score of 6 to loyalty factor, 26.3% have given a score of 7, 21.8% have given a score of 5,

12.4% have given a score of 8, 3.5% have given a score of 9, 2.5% have given a score of 4,

and 2% have given a score of 3 and 10.

No. %

Was

hing

Mac

hine

20 8.7

Refri

gerat

or

77 33.

3

DVD 156 67.

7

Micr

owav

e

oven

2 .9



Table 4: Type of education to the average loyalty factor scores

Loyalty factor of the brand

Mean S.D No.

Education

10th 6.22 1.34 151

+2 6.43 1.40 150

Graduate 6.43 1.16 80

Post

Graduate 6.89 1.24 19

TOTAL 6.37 1.33 400

ANOVA for Loyalty factor of the brand

Sum of

Square

s

df

Mean

Squar

e

F Sig

.

Betwee

n

Groups

9.419 3 3.140 1.79

2 NS

Within

Groups

693.82

1

39

6 1.752

Total 703.24

0

39

9

Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type of education groups in

the average loyalty factor scores.

Result: One way ANOVA was applied to find whether there is significant difference among

the type of education groups in the average loyalty factor scores. The ANOVA result shows

that the calculated F-value ratio is 1.792, which is lower than the table value of 2.627 at 5%

level of significance. Since the calculated value is lower than the table value it is inferred

that there is no significant difference among the type of education groups in the average

loyalty factor scores. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted

Table 5 :Type of family size to the average loyalty factor scores


Mean S.D No.

Family

size

Two

members 6.75 1.30 67

3-5

members 6.26 1.35 278

More

than 5 6.45 1.17 55

TOTAL 6.37 1.33 400




Sum of

Square

s

df

Mean

Squar

e

F Sig

.

Betwee

n

Groups

13.086 2 6.543 3.76

4 S

Within

Groups

690.15

4

39

7 1.738

Total 703.24

0

39

9

Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type of family size groups in



the type of family size groups in the average loyalty factor scores. The ANOVA result

shows that the calculated F-value ratio is 3.764, which is higher than the table value of

3.018 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is higher than the table value it

is inferred that there is significant difference among the type of family size groups in the

average loyalty factor scores. Hence the Hypothesis is rejected

Table 6: Type of occupation to the average loyalty factor scores


Mean S.D No.

Occupation

Official 6.45 1.35 85

Professional 6.52 1.31 92

Business 6.29 1.40 149

Housewife 6.51 1.10 55

Others 5.53 1.07 19

TOTAL 6.37 1.33 400


Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Squar

e

F Sig

.

Betwee

n

Groups

18.199 4 4.550 2.62

3 S

Within

Groups

685.04

1

39

5 1.734

Total 703.24

0

39

9

Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type of occupation groups in





the occupation groups in the average loyalty factor scores. The ANOVA result shows that

the calculated F-value ratio is 2.623, which is higher than the table value of 2.394 at 5%

level of significance. Since the calculated value is higher than the table value it is inferred

that there is significant difference among the occupation groups in the average loyalty factor

scores. Hence the Hypothesis is rejected.

Table 7: Category of monthly family income to the average loyalty factor scores.


Mean S.D No.

Monthly

family

income

Less than

Rs.5000 6.33 1.40 15

Rs.5001

-

Rs.10000

6.28 1.40 148

Rs.10001

-

Rs.15000

6.47 1.23 197

Rs.15001

-

Rs.20000

6.25 1.51 40

TOTAL 6.37 1.33 400


Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Between

Groups 3.729 3 1.243 .704 NS

Within

Groups 699.511 396 1.766

Total 703.240 399

Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type of income groups in the

average loyalty factor scores.


the type of income groups in the average loyalty factor scores. The ANOVA result shows

that the calculated F-value ratio is .704, which is lower than the table value of 2.627 at 5%


that there is no significant difference among the type of income groups in the average

loyalty factor scores. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.



Table 8: Type of CTV owned to the average loyalty factor scores


Mean S.D No.

CTV

owned

LG 6.39 1.23 64

Samsung 6.35 1.49 91

Onida 6.47 1.25 123

Sansui 6.30 1.27 77

Videocon 6.22 1.44 45

TOTAL 6.37 1.33 400


Sum of

Squares Df

Mean

Squar

e

F Sig

.

Betwee

n

Groups

2.700 4 .675 .38

1 NS

Within

Groups

700.54

0

39

5 1.774

Total 703.24

0

39

9

Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type of CTV owned in the

average loyalty factor scores.


the type CTV owned groups in the average loyalty factor scores. The ANOVA result shows

that the calculated F-value ratio is .381, which is lower than the table value of 2.394 at 5%


that there is no significant difference among the type of CTV owned in the average loyalty

factor scores. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.

Table 9: Difference between gender and average loyalty factor of the brand


Mean S.D No.

Gender Male 6.38 1.44 227

Female 6.36 1.18 173

TOTAL 6.37 1.33 400

t-test for Equality of Means

t Df Sig.

.153 398 Ns



Table 10: Difference between the family type and the awareness factor of the brand

Awareness factor of the brand

Mean S.D No.

Family

type

Nuclear

family 6.35 1.29 246

Joint

family 5.84 1.14 154

TOTAL 6.16 1.26 400

t-test for Equality of Means

t Df Sig.

3.986 398 **

Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between nuclear and joint family types

in the awareness factor of the brand Result: The t-test was applied to find whether there

is significant difference between nuclear and joint family types in the average awareness

factor of the brand. The calculated t-test value is 3.986 which is higher than the table value

of 2.588 at 1% level of significance. Since the calculated value is higher than the table value

it is inferred that there is significant difference between nuclear and joint family types in the

average awareness factor of the brand. Hence the Hypothesis is rejected.

Table 11: Relationship between Brand of CTV owned and purchase of any other

durable of same brand name

Purchased any other durable of same brand TOTAL

Yes No No.

% No.

% No.

%

CT

V owned

LG 43

67.2

21

32.8

64

100.0

Samsung

51

56.0

40

44.0

91

100.0

Onida 64

52.0

59

48.0

123

100.0

Sansui

43

5

5.8

34

4

4.2

77

100.0

Video

con

3

0

66.7

1

5

33.3

4

5

10

0.0

TOTAL 23

1

57.

8

16

9

42.

3

40

0

100.0



Chi-Square Test

Value df Sig.

5.674 4 NS

Table 12: The relationship between the Brand of CTV owned and intention to

purchase the CTV once again

Would you buy this brand CTV once again

TOTAL

Yes No No

.

% N

o.

%

CTV

ow

ned

LG 5

6

8

7

.5

8

1

2

.5

6

4

10

0.

0

Samsung

82

9

0.

1

9

9

.

9

91

10

0.

0

Onida

1

0

9

8

8.

6

14

1

1.

4

1

2

3

10

0.

0

Sansui

70

9

0.

9

7

9

.

1

77

10

0.

0

Vide

ocon

3

4

75

.

6

1

1

24

.

4

4

5

10

0.0

TOTAL 3

51

87

.

8

4

9

12

.

3

4

00

10

0.0

Chi-Square Test

Value df Sig.

7.501 4 NS

Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between Brand of CTV owned and the

intention to buy the same brand of CTV once again by the respondents.

Result: Chi square test was applied to find whether there is significant relationship between

brand of CTV owned and the intention to buy the same brand of CTV once again by the

respondents. The calculated value of Chi Square is 7.501, which is less than the table value

of 9.488 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is less than the table value, it

is inferred that there is no significant relationship between Brand of CTV owned and the

intention to buy the same brand of CTV once again by the respondents. Hence the

Hypothesis is accepted.



4. Conclusion :

Relevant to the objectives of the study and the statistical tools applied, the following are

concluded,

* 57.8% of the respondents have purchased the same brand.

* 47.2% of the respondents have not purchased the same brand.

* 8.75% of the respondents have purchased same brand of washing machine.

* 33.3% of the respondents have purchased same brand of refrigerator.

* 67.7% of the respondents have purchased the same brand of DVD.

* 9% of the respondents have purchased the same brand of micro wave oven.

* There is no significant difference between type of education and loyalty factor.

* There is a significant difference between family size and loyalty factor.

* There is a significant difference between occupation and loyalty factor.

* There is no significant difference between monthly family income and loyalty factor.

* There is no significant difference between CTV owned and loyalty factor. 1. There is no

significant difference between gender and loyalty factor of the brand

* There is significant difference between family type (nuclear/single) and loyalty factor of

the brand

* There is no significant relationship between brand of CTV owned and purchase of other

durables of the

same brand by the respondents.

*. There is no significant relationship between brand of CTV owned and intention to

purchase the same

CTV brand once again.

References:

1 Aaker, Vol. 16 –Nov.4th 2008. “A critical synthesis and an integrated conceptual

framework” Special Issue on Branding in the global market place. Journal of International

Marketing,

2. Aaker .J August 1997.“Dimensions of Brand Personality “Journal of Marketing

Research. Vol.34-Pg.347-357

3.Keller.K.L. “Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer Based Brand Equity”

Journal of Marketing . Vol.57, Pg.122

9. Low, Geroge.S and Roland Fullerton May 1993, “Brands, Brand Management and Brand

Manager System: A critical and Historical evaluation”, Journal of Marketing Research.

Pg.173-190

4. Pran Choudhary May. 2005– ex-Chairman Trikaya Gray “Branding in the Indian Market”

Business World.

5. Park.C.W, Jaworski and Mac Innis D.J.. “Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management”

Journal of Marketing, Vol.50. Pg.621-635

6. Peter Farquhar Sep. 1989. “Managing Brand equity”, Marketing Research.

7. S.Ramesh Kumar, Sep.2003. Professor in Marketing Indian Institute of Management,

“Exploring Brand Loyalty” IIM-B Management Review.

8. C.Samudhra Rajakumar & C.Madhavi Sep.2003 “Role of Brand Associations in

Extension Strategies” IIM-B Management review.

brand loyalty for colour television products with …esrjournal.com/uploads/91/4857_pdf.pdf ·...

Documents